Jordan wrote:I wouldn't say I necessarily use the stats to make decisions, they are there to back up what I see. If I believe a rookie ball guy could develop 20+ HR power down the line, and I check his stats and see he has 25 doubles, that would back up what I saw.

It's a good basis for a starting point, but what I've run into over the years is you can see a guy that puts up 25 doubles, but he hits 22 of them against 18 year old undrafted FA that are out of baseball the next year, and facing guys at his own talent level he might hit .135 with 3 doubles, 0 BB and 35K. Just gotta be careful at the lower levels, you see it all the time, either a guy that doesn't produce much and then comes out of no where in the mid levels, (Britton) or a guy that kills it in the lower levels and then is horribly overmatched as he moves up (Vinyard).

Of course. Age relative is one of the most important things. I do agree, though. I saw Connor Narron play three games for the GCL Orioles, where I believe he struck out 7 times. About 5 of the strikeouts were terrible calls by the ump and really, Narron laid off a ball, but picked up a K. After watching him a few times, I came away seeing a patient hitter. The strikeouts wouldn't indicate that though.

Exactly!! I learned early on when I started scouting HS kids that there is more to the story than what your eyes are telling you. You gotta see the multiple times and you gotta look for the things that repeat, really get into their thought process.

Jordan wrote:I wouldn't say I necessarily use the stats to make decisions, they are there to back up what I see. If I believe a rookie ball guy could develop 20+ HR power down the line, and I check his stats and see he has 25 doubles, that would back up what I saw.

It's a good basis for a starting point, but what I've run into over the years is you can see a guy that puts up 25 doubles, but he hits 22 of them against 18 year old undrafted FA that are out of baseball the next year, and facing guys at his own talent level he might hit .135 with 3 doubles, 0 BB and 35K. Just gotta be careful at the lower levels, you see it all the time, either a guy that doesn't produce much and then comes out of no where in the mid levels, (Britton) or a guy that kills it in the lower levels and then is horribly overmatched as he moves up (Vinyard).

Of course. Age relative is one of the most important things. I do agree, though. I saw Connor Narron play three games for the GCL Orioles, where I believe he struck out 7 times. About 5 of the strikeouts were terrible calls by the ump and really, Narron laid off a ball, but picked up a K. After watching him a few times, I came away seeing a patient hitter. The strikeouts wouldn't indicate that though.

Jordan wrote:I wouldn't say I necessarily use the stats to make decisions, they are there to back up what I see. If I believe a rookie ball guy could develop 20+ HR power down the line, and I check his stats and see he has 25 doubles, that would back up what I saw.

It's a good basis for a starting point, but what I've run into over the years is you can see a guy that puts up 25 doubles, but he hits 22 of them against 18 year old undrafted FA that are out of baseball the next year, and facing guys at his own talent level he might hit .135 with 3 doubles, 0 BB and 35K. Just gotta be careful at the lower levels, you see it all the time, either a guy that doesn't produce much and then comes out of no where in the mid levels, (Britton) or a guy that kills it in the lower levels and then is horribly overmatched as he moves up (Vinyard).

I'm probably 60% scouting and 40% statistics. I like to see a guy in person and look at the statistics to explain what I see on the field. I don't like talking or arguing about players that I haven't a) seen myself or b) spoken to a knowledgeable baseball person I trust like a coach, scout etc.

The only stats I look at:

PitchersBB/9K/9FIPGB%H/9HR/9

Hitters2BBB/KSBHR

I think I start to look at stats more from AA on, by then the guy should know what he's doing and you are looking for results, but early on I want to know HOW he got the K's, was it swinging at a pitch out of the zone? was it out of the zone because he couldn't command it? Were the GB because of a good pitch or because the hitter sucked?

In the lower levels you can't trust stats as much because there are so many variables in the competition. In the higher levels you can trust a bit more that the opponents know what they are doing and will lay off of bad pitches, forcing the pitcher to beat them versus the batter beating themselves (thank god there is no Out of Context Thread yet).

]]>2010-09-13T17:34:49-05:002010-09-13T17:34:49-05:00http://orioles-nation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=45&p=319#p319I'm probably 60% scouting and 40% statistics. I like to see a guy in person and look at the statistics to explain what I see on the field. I don't like talking or arguing about players that I haven't a) seen myself or b) spoken to a knowledgeable baseball person I trust like a coach, scout etc.

BuckMagic wrote:How do they work with each other? Which is more important?

IMO, it varies from level to level in the minors. Stats aren't important to me until a player reaches A+. You really need to see a player below A+ in order to see their true talent level.

Thoughts?

Oooooh juicy one I get into this one all the time. They are both necessary in the big picture, however some people lean more one way or the other. The saber-metrics guys and I always end up getting into long drawn out debates over prospects. Here's MY theory.

I'm a scouting guy. Not really even close honestly. There is no statistic you can use to replace years of experience and the ability to see and judge intangibles. You can manipulate statistics to say just about anything you want, a guy strikes out the side every time the full moon is scheduled after a game that starts at 4pm on odd-numbered days, even if it only happened once, so what if it's a small sample size? (yes I know I over-exaggerated) Some guys will dig and dig for stats until they find one that suits their argument at the time, and then will ignore any other stats that disprove their side.

Guys like Mike Leake, Mike Minor, Jamie Moyer etc...are good examples of guys that don't have the best stuff and aren't going to win over the world, but you see something in them that makes you take them over the "sexy pick" and they reward you with almost no time in the minors and successful years.

]]>2010-09-12T23:02:32-05:002010-09-12T23:02:32-05:00http://orioles-nation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=45&p=304#p304IMO, it varies from level to level in the minors. Stats aren't important to me until a player reaches A+. You really need to see a player below A+ in order to see their true talent level.